SynthesisClinical oral investigations2023
Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography in determining gingival thickness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel fluoride tray-assisted workflow for artificial intelligence-driven automated maxillary gingival segmentation on cone beam CT.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2026Article
- Gingival phenotype assessment: a comparative study of a novel CBCT-based measurement technique and transgingival probing.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effect of different ultrasonography probes on intra and interrater reliability in periodontal diagnostic parameter measurements: a pilot study.Oral radiology · 2026Observational
- Ultrasound-based assessment of peri-implant mucosal thickness: an ex vivo comparative study with artificial intelligence-assisted image analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Digital Analysis of Dentogingival Factors Influencing the Gingival Margin Position in the Esthetic Zone.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025Article
- Comparison of Ultrasonography, CBCT, Transgingival Probing, Colour-Coded and Periodontal Probe Transparency With Histological Gingival Thickness: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study Revisiting Thick Versus Thin Gingiva.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2025Article
- Difference in Buccal Gingival Thickness between the Mandible and Maxilla in the Aesthetic Zone: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- A novel approach for gingiva thickness measurements around lower anterior teeth by means of dental magnetic resonance imaging.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Comparative Evaluation of the Accuracy of Gingival Thickness Measurement by Clinical Evaluation and Intraoral Ultrasonography.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for determining gingival thickness. MATERIAL AND
methodsSearches were undertaken in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science, Scopus, LIVIVO, and gray literature (Google Scholar and ProQuest) for studies considered eligible according to the following criteria: cross-sectional observational studies, which compared CBCT accuracy with that of transgingival probing when determining gingival thickness, in adult patients with good periodontal health. No language or time restrictions were applied in this systematic review. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies.
resultsSix articles were included for qualitative synthesis, involving a pooled sample of 132 patients with a mean age of 29 years (18-51 years). Of these 6 studies, 5 were eligible for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between CBCT and transgingival probing measures of gingival tissue (mean difference of 0.10 (95% CI-0.17-0.38). No significant level of heterogeneity was detected (Tau
conclusionsCBCT is an accurate method for determining gingival tissue thickness, comparable to the reference standard (transgingival probing). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: CBCT could be considered for gingival thickness measurement when bone thickness is also needed, and thereby aid in the assessment of gingival biotype without the discomfort and anesthesia needed in transgingival probing.
trial registrationThis protocol was registered at the PROSPERO database (International Prospective Register of Systematic Review) under registration number CRD42022326970. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022326970 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
36757462What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.